If it's broke, you've got to fix it

As the dismal state of The Lodge demonstrates to us all, saving money by not spending it on areas that need funding doesn't make the need go away. That same lesson should be applied in politics, writes Greg Jericho.

Not surprisingly the Abbott Government has thus far been more symbolic than substantive. Amidst reports that Mr Abbott hoped to slow the news cycle it is good to know that there is always room for the new-PM puff piece. This time round it was to reinforce - if such reinforcement was required - that Tony Abbott is proud of his masculinity.

It was relayed on the weekend that Mr Abbott will be staying in the student accommodation at the AFP College while The Lodge is being renovated. The pitch of the story is that not only is Mr Abbott very careful with taxpayers' money, but that he really is suited to the Spartan life of the police recruit. Heck he'll even get to use their gym!

But as with a lot of hair-shirt economy drives it hides that such parsimony is mostly overrated (and ignores that Julia Gillard also stayed there, so it is not that big a deal). The only reason Mr Abbott is staying at the college is because The Lodge has had to undergo massive renovations - renovations which were put off for so long because of the dumb underlying assumption that money spent on politicians is all waste.

And rather unsurprisingly not spending money renovating The Lodge has not caused the asbestos present in the building to disappear.

The media might enjoy relaying anecdotes from Julia Gillard remarking on how once a dinner needed to be quickly ended because of possums urinating down the wall, but that the building was allowed to be reduced to such a disgraceful condition only highlights that saving money by not spending it on areas that need funding doesn't make the need go away.

Which brings us to the Government's new economic position.

Joe Hockey as Treasurer and the Finance Minister Mathias Cormann are two men who for the past three years have talked the big game on waste. So strong were they both on the waste perpetuated by the ALP that you would think shifting to surplus was an easy step of just cutting that great gob of waste and voila surplus heaven.

Gone is the talk of living within our means and not spending borrowed money. Now the message is stimulus!

While this shift will no doubt infuriate the ALP who had to defend the charges of economic mismanagement all because they did not deliver a surplus, the ALP has only itself to blame for not using the past five and a half years to educate the voters that a budget deficit or surplus is not a signifier of economic health or ill.

Wayne Swan and others also failed to convey that a budget is not a bank account - the amount of surplus/deficit in one year does not actually affect the surplus or deficit in the following year.

Too often a deficit gets viewed interchangeably with "debt". It does indeed take a long time to pay off debt, but the reason it usually takes a long time to move from a deficit to a surplus is not because you have to pay off a deficit, but because reducing the size of the deficit is in effect reducing the amount of demand in the economy provided by the government.

That was why when Wayne Swan proposed shifting from a deficit in 2011-12 to a surplus in 2012-13 the issue that worried most economists was that it would require Swan putting his foot on the economic brake harder than had any treasurer in over 40 years.

And while Swan did jam his foot on the brake (though still not enough to get into surplus) a look at the employment growth shows that while he was doing it, Australia's employment situation was falling:

Were Joe Hockey in any doubt of whether to keep up the rhetoric of opposition while in charge of the Treasury, it would have been dispelled with last week's unemployment figures.

When we breakdown the annual employment growth among the different types of states we can see that the mining states/territory0020(Western Australia and Northern Territory) were for most of 2011 and all of 2012 growing well ahead of the non-mining states of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania and ACT, while QLD (which is a bit of both types) since the middle of 2012 has been struggling along behind.

But now we have a situation where the non-mining and mining sectors of the economy have converged (at least in employment terms). Two speed economy no more.

So now instead of budget emergency and the need to pay off debt in double-quick time, we hear talk of a plan to quickly boost infrastructure spending, as Laura Tingle wrote in the AFR (paywall), "to stave off the post-mining boom slowdown".

And here I thought all was needed was for Tony Abbott to declare "Australia is open for business", and "under new management" to get things going.

But what infrastructure is being built? Roads, is pretty much the only answer. Public transport in the form of rail has been handballed to the states due for seemingly little reason other than an ideological predisposition of Tony Abbott's that that is the way it should be done, because that was the way it was done in the past. But it is clear that doing it 'that way has' led to a stockpile of transport problems.

During the election Andrew Robb - then spokesperson for finance - suggested the Liberal Party's expenditure on roads would free up money for the states to spend on rail projects. A suggestion that is best filed under the "we'll believe that when we see it" category.

The next put-off-till-later move seems to be the mid-year economic and fiscal outlook, which usually comes out in November/early December. The whispers are that this will be put off till January for the laughable reason of not hurting consumer confidence before Christmas. It rather suggests the new Treasurer believes confidence is based on fairy tales and moonbeams rather than the actual economic and employment situation.

If the economic situation is dire then a government should be able to inspire confidence by outlining what will be done to deal with it. In the end the ALP failed to do this. It seems Joe Hockey, Mathias Cormann and Tony Abbott are preferring to put off doing things till later - possibly when everyone is on holidays and more concerned with the cricket and tennis than what our politicians are saying.

But just like asbestos in the Lodge, sooner or later the government has to deal with the situation at hand.

Greg Jericho writes weekly for The Drum. His blog can be found here. View his full profile here.

Comments (394)

Comments for this story are closed.

the yank:

18 Sep 2013 7:37:56am

Good article Greg.

Now LNP supporters are you comfortable with the lies that Abbott and Hockey told you during the past three years and more specifically the big one Abbott told us on August 11, 2013 that his government would return the government to surplus in its first year?

Face it he lied pure and simple.

Now if Gillard lied about no carbon tax why can't you admit that Abbott has also been telling porkies?

Bighead1883:

Paul01:

Fact: Tony said "there will be a surplus in the first year of a coalition government".

No revision needed, he said those words and needs to be held to the same standard that was applied to PM Gillard by all on the right. Do you remember what nasty old Alan Jones called the then PM?

Juliar

Even in power the BS continues, Andrew Robb on the ABC radio this morning talking about "sovereign risk", seriously does Robb know what sovereign risk is?

No one has answered my query as to why the solicitor Mathias Cormann got finance ahead of the more senior, masters of accounting and taxation, former Director of the ATO, aircraft flight controller, commercial pilot, Susan Ley?

Peter the Lawyer:

18 Sep 2013 10:26:05am

Poor old Paul, you are going to have a frustrating three years. You are going to see terrible bogeys everywhere. You are going to see things that you believe shoudl be the death of the Coalition Government, that somehow don't excite anyone else in the public or the media. You are going to run about to every place where you can comment on-line and tell us all how 'Tony Abbot's government is pure evil.'

And you know what?

The Abbot Government is going to go from strength to strength while you mount your strange little crusade.

The things that bother people like you and all the ALP supporters here on the poor Drum, don't really bother the rest of us at all. We don't care how many women there are in the Cabinet. We don't care about attempted gotchas with the surplus. We don't care that asylum boats have continued to arrive before the Abbot government's policies are put into place. We just want the government to be grown up in its responses, not adolescent like the last Government was. That means lots and lots of boring but necessary stuff will be done. Departments will be administered and we can all go on with our lives and stop expecting governments to solve all our problems.

The Future:

18 Sep 2013 2:20:29pm

If you want to blame anyone for the budget deficit, you may want to ask economists what caused it.Now, try & find a legitimate economist that will tell you anything other than the FACT that Howard/Costello handed over government with a $30 BILLION structural deficit.

Did Rudd, Gillard & Swan blow through some money? Absolutely. In doing so they also saved Australia from recession throughout the GFC and made Australia's economy the envy of the developed world.

As was pointed out in the article, if Labor were simply wasting money, Abbott & Hockey would have no trouble paring it back & putting the budget back in surplus. They can't, primarily because cutting the middle class welfare that Howard & Costello implemented would be so politically unpalatable as to even now ensure the LNP would lose the next election.

This is the problem with the type of handouts that Howard & Costello implemented - both parties know that they aren't sustainable but neither is prepared to cut them as it will ensure they lose the next election!

burke:

Alpo:

18 Sep 2013 9:26:50pm

burke, most "money in the bank" when down the drain with your neoliberal GFC. So, we worked hard, we paid taxes, Costello took them, stored them away, and they went down the drain. In other words, we worked hard for nothing!... And now the Liberals are back in power... Oh dear!

Peter of Melbourne:

18 Sep 2013 11:44:48am

Nothing wrong with our society in the 1950's compared to the mess we have ended up with today. If we end up back there again it will not harm us and it may even help us get back on track as a society to concentrate on what really matters, family and country.

Spending my teens in the 80's I have seen where our society truly began its downfall into the abysmal mess it is today where it is all about me, me, me. Greed Is Good! It was a phrase from a movie that has sadly been made real to the detriment of all in our society (expect those such as mining, retail and banking class)

In the 1950's top exectutives earned around 4x more than the average employee, not 100's of times more as is currently the case. An executive in the 1950's also had to have practical knowledge which is sadly lacking the same species today.

the bolter:

18 Sep 2013 12:34:59pm

and in the 50s Melbourne and Collingwood were strong..... ah the good old days, suits and hats and ties at the footy , eskies at the cricket. 6 oclock swill, meat and 3 veg for dinner. women in the kitchen coppers on the beat pulling ears and giving the kids a reminder to be home. and the best thing tony abbott hadn't arrived yet on the boat from old blighty.

Davo:

Basil C:

18 Sep 2013 1:41:16pm

I think you might be backing the wrong horse if you think that this mob is going to turn equity around. It's all going to be about the right wing American model. Freedom and liberty in business, the opposite for women, minorities, the disposessed, in fact anyone not a rich, white, heterosexual.

I think that we understand enough about Mr Abbott already to know that when he says he will be governing for all Australians, that what he actually means is that he plans to govern all Australians, and that he plans to do so on behalf of Mr Murdoch, Ms Reinhart and Cardinal Pell.

Mycal:

18 Sep 2013 2:14:40pm

Peter I grew up in the 1950's, it was not all bliss. We had recessions under Menzies and people went hungry, single mothers and pensioners had it tough. If you grew up in the 1980's all you have ever experienced is a growing economy. Hardly a basis for comparison. Agree your comment about executive salaries though.

Peter of Melbourne:

18 Sep 2013 4:28:58pm

Really I have sets of Grandparents who have worked all their lives in their professions. The difference between the 50's and the 80's was that in the 80's both parents were forced into employment to make ends meet whether they wanted it or not. In the 70's my father worked and supported a family of 9, in the 80's that was no longer possible. Yeah, "Greed is Good"!

darthseditious:

18 Sep 2013 5:06:04pm

The 80's ended in a pretty bad recession I remember. I had only gotten out of High School when the Stock Market Collapsed and the recession hit. It took me two years to find full time work and part time work was pretty hard to nail down as well. It wasn't all great in the 80's. can't comment on the 50's as I wasn't there.

burke:

Rob:

18 Sep 2013 11:10:25am

We have just had three years of neo con inspired terrible bogeys everywhere-the budget emergency we never had was just one in a long line.One hopesthe ALP in opposition will be he much more "grown up" than the LNP was and have more courage to take on the LNP and media fraud than it did when it was in Government.Soon or later the LNP Government will have to deal with reality- the reality that its neo liberal economics are and never have been sustainable.\I think it may be found wanting and no amount of your delusion will change that reality.

Mycal:

18 Sep 2013 2:19:44pm

I'd like to think you were right Rob but I think the neocon victory is insight, the reality is that if people don't care about the issues they won't take the trouble to inform themselves and won't trouble themselves to read more than the Tele.

burke:

Peter of Perth:

18 Sep 2013 11:17:39am

Peter the Lawyer-- Well said and covers what we laughingly refer to as the opposition and their antics very well indeed. I quite often get really good belly laughs when I read the rantings and ravings of the bitter losers from Labor's miserable time in office. They will suffer constant heart burn and all sorts of intestinal problems to do with their bowels as they screech and scream their way through the many many years Labor will be in opposition and tear themselves apart, as we are seeing already in their ongoing adherence to Rudd's idea of glueing the leader's backside to his chair. (No females being considered here and the fact that they are going to parachute Howes into Carr's place in the Senate rather than give Deb O'Neill a go, a Labor member with a great track record and apparently very popular but, not a bloke) We can get some entertainment anyway reading the utter BS the loopy lefties will continue posting on the ABC and in Fairfax media.

Davo:

18 Sep 2013 2:18:36pm

I'll join you in the big belly laugh when all those duped by Murdoch get royally screwed by Abbott. What I'm really waiting for is Abbott to stop the boats, that is going to be hilarious. Watch the navy makes idiots of themselves, watch navy captains charged for crimes against humanity. Watch these Abbott idots claim non-core promises and "its not a lie if its from the LNP"!Wouldn't want to be a middle income earner or small business owner right now!

Peter of Perth:

18 Sep 2013 4:45:53pm

Davo-- What a load of rubbish. Get over your loss mate and at least give the new government a chance because nothing could be worse for Australia than continuing down the road your Labor luvvie mates had us on.

burke:

Cameron:

18 Sep 2013 6:41:52pm

Ever spoke to a young tradie in Penrith Mr Burke? I suspect not. What you will hear is exactly the sort of rot put out by News Corp...BER, Pink Batts, NBN business case, government waste etc etc. So, maybe not duped, just given selective info is what I'd say.

grump3:

18 Sep 2013 5:16:08pm

I see TPG has already announced plans to cherry pick some of the most profitable urban areas with its own existing fibre in direct competition with Abbott's Fraudband (the LNP coined term for FTTN)Obviouly Optus & the $11B richer Telstra/Foxtel won't be far behind which would indicate their present $30B FTTN elephant now open to competing network players might rapidly fade in colour from rosey pink to an expensive taxpayer funded hue of arctic white?

Stephen:

Horror of horrors! Although the first two are mostly furphies. The deaths installing the pink batts were horrendous but they should not be laid at the feet of the government, the employers must shoulder some of the blame for not providing a safe work environment.

As for the debt I hope Liberal voters in Western Australia hold the Barnett Government to the same standard as the Federal Government in seeing under their guidance debt has blown out from $3billion to an estimated $28 billion and all during a mining boom.

As for the boats what a horrible scare campaign but thats the right of politics for you beat up on the weak and vulnerable.

Peter of Perth:

18 Sep 2013 4:47:44pm

Don't worry about WA, just watch the entire Australian economy pick up and then EVERYONE will benefit. But don't let any of the successes that are on their way stop you from your delusional rants, they are worth some laughs.

Inside Out:

18 Sep 2013 3:39:19pm

Peter from Perth - Have your say now while you can on matters concerning the Federal Government because if Abbott is anything like Barnett, and he says he admires Barnett, then I'm betting you will pull your head in quick smart after a short time with Tony at the helm.

BG:

blax5:

18 Sep 2013 11:29:40am

You may be misreading the electorate here. From where I sit nobody expects government to solve all our problems - only those which the individual cannot solve.

We would probably build our own roads, hospitals, underground station right outside our front door, clean up air pollution and water, hire security guards - but we can't. We delegate these things to elected representatives who then form a government to deal with as many of the issues as possible.

Interestingly enough, new structures have led to even more government tasks. After privatisation of electricity companies many people cannot really understand their electricity bills which doesn't worry anyone, as long as the figure in bold is acceptable. What matters is that government monitors price calculations and the merchant middlemen because there's been fiddling going on. I feel better if there is a government checking over electricity prices to prevent price gauging, because I could never do that.

The world is not black and white. I had to laugh about the Lodge part of the article. Since when were the renovations due? How many male PMs did not have the resolve to tackle the problem? Great stuff.

burke:

juliet jones:

18 Sep 2013 11:55:03am

Peter, the sad thing about you is that you apparently don't 'care' about anything. You are driven purely by ideology; the importance of being Liberal. You talk about the grownups being in charge; no Minister for Science and a total lack of respect towards the Indonesian Government. Yeah, it will be an interesting three years, but I don't see the Coalition going from strength to strength. I think they will make us a laughing stock and screw the good economy we have. But you can harbour your views-after all, they're in your DNA.

big joe:

18 Sep 2013 12:37:20pm

"They will make us a laughing stock" Juliet? I seem to recall you saying that a few days ago, that's right, you were commenting on the international medias reaction to the election results and as I recall you said that some overseas newspapers made a similar comment about Australia being a laughing stock. Unfortunately several people took you to task and it turns out you were telling a few porkies, for someone who lays claim to the moral high ground you certainly seem to deal loosely with the truth.

christophus:

18 Sep 2013 1:43:09pm

I agree with Juliet,

Watching the private school club get sworn in this morning, laughing, giggling and clueless. They have no right to democracy, how much more money do they want? Tired of defence laywers spinning getting off a crook, what ever happened to public defender lawyers. And unbiased court judges.

burke:

juliet jones:

18 Sep 2013 4:54:47pm

No Big Joe, you are mistaken. No one took me to task and I wasn't telling any lies. Go and look on: the Huff Post, the NY Times, the LA Times and the Guardian to name only a few and see what the international community is already saying about the Liberal government based on it's previous form as the Opposition. The fact is Joe, you are welcome to your opinions, but you can't make them into facts and in this case, the facts are all on my side. Sorry, but you lose.

burke:

Jason:

18 Sep 2013 12:16:10pm

Your last line is the only line worth commenting on Peter. People do expect the government to solve all their problems, but those people aren't prepared to pay the tax required to allow the government to fix the problems. Abbott isn't going to be the economic knight in shining armour that the right whingers expect. In fact it is highly likely he will not deliver a budget surplus in the first term, but more likely he will deliver negative growth. Abbott's PPL scheme is diabolical, and shows that he is just as addicted to middle and upper class welfare as his hero JWH. At best an Abbott government will be a do nothing government, at worst it will add to the structural deficit meaning larger problems for us all long after he has been booted out.

christophus:

big joe:

18 Sep 2013 3:27:07pm

Robert, there will be no DD, wiser heads than the labor trolls who infest the drum will support TA's mandate. To force a DD by obstructing this mandate will only result in a even bigger drubbing than Labor just received and they know it. The average person on either side of the political fence is tired of the argy bargy and wants stable government. It's only those rusted on ones who refuse to accept the people verdict who want further political chaos. Thankfully there doesn't seem too many people like that.

True Blue Ozzie:

18 Sep 2013 1:10:54pm

One thing is for certain Abbott's totally responsible for creating the most negative, divisive, disrespectful, gutter scum political landscape over the last three years and of modern times . I don't care what fence you sit , Abbott has really degraded the political landscape with negitives and wasted weeks of parliament time when he should have been debating real police's, real issues and matters that were really important to Australian's.

But no like a "spoilt brat " he went out of his way to turn parliament into a circus, then comes out the other side claiming he's the good guy and labor was the bad guy. I'm the god guy you need to vote for me.

South of Saturn:

18 Sep 2013 1:36:47pm

The Liberal party died years ago...

...used to be the party of the small/medium business owner. Now it is a neo-Con think tank that has quite cynically began using little more than right-wing propaganda techniques to fool people into voting for them. Unfortunately for these neo-Cons, they have made promises that they just can't keep. The next 3 years are going to be very interesting once people realise that TA doensn't actually have any control over the boats - or lets face no clue in how to run a country given the insane policy of 4.5b from foreign aid (just an evil decision) whilst 6.6b per year goes on PPL (unsustainably generous). Does not seem to be any coherent economic theory behind the Australian neo-Conservative Party...

the bolter:

18 Sep 2013 12:37:26pm

but lets be fair dear tony only lies as a good little ex Jesuit if he wrote it down. he told us don't believe anything he mutters he only writes the truth................. oh dear its going to be a long cold time for bolt and jones with nothing to whinge about.

tsj:

18 Sep 2013 11:37:21am

"No one has answered my query as to why the solicitor Mathias Cormann got finance ahead of the more senior, masters of accounting and taxation, former Director of the ATO, aircraft flight controller, commercial pilot, Susan Ley?"Paul01, Many of the new 'meritocracy' cabinet positions do not make any sense, regardless of gender bias.

Marise Payne has been in parliament since 1997, and has ample experience and qualifications to have been appointed a position in Mr. Abbott's Cabinet, but is instead only in the Outer Ministry.

Greg Hunt, who continues in his misplaced role as new Minister for the Environment, when he should be in Foreign Affairs. His formal qualifications, including a Fulbright Scholarship to Yale University (USA) where he gained a Master of Arts in International Relations and his work experience as Senior Adviser to Alexander Downer, both as Leader of the Opposition (1994?95) and Minister for Foreign Affairs (1995?98); and as Director of Strategy at the World Economic Forum in Geneva 2000-01; and his 2007 role when he was appointed Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, would all point to a senior position in Foreign Affairs - not to Minister for the Environment, although he has considerable experience, if not qualifications in this area, after being landed with aspects of this portfolio in opposition on several occasions.

Julie Bishop, our new Foreign Minister, has formal qualifications in Law and Business, not International Relations. She was a practising Barrister and Solicitor and rose to the senior positions of partner and managing partner in the companies she worked for during this time. Her formal business qualification, according to her bio, is the completion of an 8 week 'Advanced Management Program for Senior Managers' at the Harvard Business School in Boston (USA).

On her experience in Foreign Affairs, she is relatively inexperienced when compared to Greg Hunt. According to her wikipedia page: "On 16 February 2009, she resigned from the position of Shadow Treasurer, due to dissatisfaction within Liberal ranks over her performance. Bishop moved to Foreign Affairs while maintaining her position of Deputy Leader." It also goes on to mention a gaffe which should not be tolerated in international dealings: "In 2010 Bishop defended the suspected forgery of Australian passports by Mossad, saying that many countries practised the forging of passports for intelligence operations, including Australia. The government attacked Bishop over the statements, saying she had "broken a long-standing convention" in not speculating about intelligence practices. She later clarified her statement, saying, "I have no knowledge of any Australian authority forging any passports of any nation."

NikMak:

18 Sep 2013 8:33:06am

perhaps, but its still problematic because he used the surplus position to campaign on for 3 years. Its still disingenuous to say "we can give you a surplus" constantly, and then turn around and quietly change your mind 10 minutes before the election.

It's a pure embodiment of the petty politics he decried during his official campaign.

Wining Pom:

Peter the Lawyer:

18 Sep 2013 10:29:44am

A strategy can't be untrue. A politician may tell untruths as part of his or her strategy, like Julia Gillard, whose startegy was to keep the Greens on side by going back on her no carbon tax promise, but the strategy itself is not a lie, but to lie.

You really need to understand the use of language better if you are to debate politics with any conviction.

Wining Pom:

Polysemantic Pete:

"You really need to understand the use of language better if you are to debate politics with any conviction."

And people really need to understand politics if they are to debate politics with any conviction.

I would have thought a lawyer (chortle, cough, guffaw) would see there is more to society and politics than simple yes, no; black, white solutions and understand that there are often two equally worthy sides to a story. So what gives with you delivering monologues from one side only?

Ben the Solicitor:

18 Sep 2013 12:26:17pm

Peter the Lawyer you say "A politician may tell untruths as part of his or her strategy, like Julia Gillard, whose startegy (sic) was to keep the Greens on side by going back on her no carbon tax promise, but the strategy itself is not a lie, but to lie."

"But to lie." It's that definition of lie that Tony Abbott can now be expected to be judged by. The dictionary definition of lie is a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive, an intentional untruth or a falsehood.

It seems that for the last three years a lie, in regards to Julia Gillard, has meant a falsehood, unless one really believes she had a crystal ball to see into the future and knew there would be a hung parliament and therefore she deliberately intended to deceive voters with her words before the election.

The unusual circumstances that she found herself in were of no importance in the judging of her words as a lie so I think it only fair the Mr Abbott be held to the same version of a lie. If changing circumstances or outside influences beyond the control of government play a factor in him back tracking or moving away from a promise that is just too bad. He should expect nothing less than to hold himself to the same standard he held the previous government.

That is the bloody minded attitude that has worked so well over the past three years why should it be packed away and seen as unfair or unreasonable now.

christophus:

Peter of Melbourne:

18 Sep 2013 3:18:19pm

No one forced her to make that deal with the Greens the day after the election. She made her promise to the Australian people and decided her grasping at the reigns of power was more important than the public's trust. She lied whether you wish to admit it or not, changing circumstances in which she was in control mean that the "oh she didnt mean it" excuse does not fly. A lie is lie, its not rocket science and your spin doesnt change it.

din:

i admit that they shouldnt have promised a surplus, but thats just inexperience. I expect Swan was told to promise a surplus, as he is too experienced a treasurer to make such a simple error.

i reckon their major mistake was to keep on getting the figures wrong. I'm not talking about how their budget was always out, but when the surplus was no longer possible, their expected deficit kept on blowing out on a weekly basis by millions.

Tom1:

18 Sep 2013 2:58:36pm

Pete: To be honest I would be satisfied if Abbott just said that he has changed his mind, through circumstances changing, Possibly his three daughters getting older.

Having said that I am not satisfied with the fact that he called .Julia Gillard a "Liar" nearly every day of the week, and orchestrated his cronies to do likewise. A "Lie" is a deliberate untruth, so the word probably does not fir either Gillard, or Abbott.

What does fit Abbott are words like exaggerator, half truths,obfuscation,negativity, backflip, and many others I can think of.

Jimmy_Girl:

18 Sep 2013 3:20:37pm

Tony Abbott said that in 2002, when he was part of the Howard Government. So what he was saying was true. It didn't happen under the Howard Government, but will be legislated in an Abbott Government. Different Governments, different policies.

harry:

18 Sep 2013 10:41:23am

It didn't happen 10 minutes before the election, it evolved over a period of months starting from late last year as the government slowly released the true extent of the discrepancies between their forecasts and the actual budget results.

By the end of that period there had been a $31B turn around in just this year and a larger deterioration in the forward estimates.

They had abandoned any surplus in the first term by early this year.

Gillard promised not Carbon Tax under any government she leads in the days before election, but was happy to trade this away for the support of The Greens.

An attempt to equate the two is totally disingenuous, given the judgement of the electorate about integrity, it would do well for Labor supporters to try a different approach in the future.

archie:

Surely:

18 Sep 2013 2:43:39pm

I dont believe anyone voted for the Libs thinking they were going to deliver a surplus budget in the first term. As Pete the Lawyer suggests those thinking this gotcha has any legs are wasting their time.

rabbie:

18 Sep 2013 9:14:02am

JRM, I am sure that Abbott will change his mind on a few other things over coming months.

But, of course, one "lie" (and whether it deserves to be called that is arguable) by Julia Gillard was enough for the Liberals and their assorted flunkeys, bilious shock jocks, minions of mining millionaires and media moguls to condemn and vilify her for three years.

Greg:

18 Sep 2013 3:22:09pm

Poor Mark James, it really must suck big time for you. FYI the reason they can't be released on the 100th day is because the public servants who actually provide the figures and release them are away enjoying their much deserved christmas new year holidays.

Roscoe in the middle:

19 Sep 2013 12:48:11am

I think the point is that a national infrastructure network, that can move data at the speed of light, will potentially benefit everybody and anybody, even businesses and products that that haven't been thought of yet. Part of the difficulty in doing a cost benefit analysis actually. The size and scope of the project and the capital risk means its beyond the capacity or vision of any single private enterprise.

juliet jones:

18 Sep 2013 11:51:34am

No, you're wrong. When Leigh Sales interviewed the now-Treasurer Joe Hockey a couple of days before the election, she asked him if the so-called 'budget emergency' which had been spruicked by the Coalition for months was over and he categorically said 'No.' She pushed it and he repeated that we were indeed in the midst of a budget emergency. That was also the whole tone of the Murdoch papers, that we needed this Liberal government because our economy was failing and we needed an austerity government who would cut, cut, cut. Never believed it myself. Now it's good if they are all now Keynesians, but they lied non-stop. No one in the Liberal camp can ever call Gillard a liar again after the great bait and switch which they have perpetrated on the Australian public. The sad thing is, Murdoch won't point this out and probably no Labor leader will ever be as nasty and dishonest as Tonee and will never be able to get that message out. But those who can think for themselves know the truth.

christophus:

the yank:

18 Sep 2013 12:24:10pm

You want more Abbott porkies?

The latest can be found on page 10 of the AFR. The article is titled "Mundine sticks to his guns over cuts to legal aid"

You may remember that the LNP forecasted a $42 million cut to indigenous legal aid. This program was started under the Gillard government and was now to be axed by Abbott. Well Mudine called Hockey over these proposed cuts. Mundine is quoted in the AFR as Hockey saying to Mundine "yeah, yeah we'll take care of it, we'll reverse that and look somewhere else'.

Well guess what Hockey denies he ever gave that agreement and the cuts will be going ahead at least until Abbott or Hockey are too embarrassed and do another backflip.

How many lies does this mob have to tell you before you get it? They cannot be trusted no matter what they say.

Peter the Lawyer:

18 Sep 2013 10:32:21am

The independents didn't force the the Gillard government to introduce a Carbon tax. They voted for it when it came into Parliament, much to their shame, but they had no hand in its introduction. If the Gillard government hadn't introduced the tax, the indeps would still have continued to give Ms Gillard support in votes of confidence.

harry:

18 Sep 2013 11:01:47am

The independents didn't urge Gillard to renege on her promise, they agreed to vote with her, and would have done so without the Carbon Tax. The Greens would have sided with Labor regardless of the Carbon tax. The reality was that Gillard gave little value to her integrity and her promises to the electors so she threw the Carbon Tax in without a fight.

Tony Windsor (the coward who wouldn't face his electorate) said many things, including that Mr Abbott would have done anything to get in power, and yet, the reality is that Mr Abbott did not approach The Greens with a Carbon Tax. In fact Mr Oakeshott complained that Mr Abbott didn't even get up to greet him. So it would appear that Mr Windsor may not be a reliable source.

Polysemantic Pete:

18 Sep 2013 1:25:37pm

"After 9 days you are judging performance ?"

I'm certainly not. I'm looking back over the entire career of Mr Tony Abbott and recalling a lot of what he has said during that time.

He can think he's fooled some of the public with his attempt at looking "statesman-like" for five weeks of reading scripted speeches, but he can't escape the history that will haunt him even after he is no longer PM.

big joe:

18 Sep 2013 11:25:08am

Rabbie, forget the crap and face facts, the LNP supported 85% of labors proposed legislation and I would hardly call that banging on about everything Gillard did. The other thing for you to consider is that they were the opposition who are supposed to oppose legislation they don't agree with if they didn't they would not be called the opposition would they? Gillard was too quick to play the gender card when things didn't go her way and Rudd had too many thought bubbles and consequently lost the election and now they are the opposition and I would expect them to act in the same way as the LNP did in opposition.

Polysemantic Pete:

18 Sep 2013 1:33:07pm

" The other thing for you to consider is that they were the opposition who are supposed to oppose legislation they don't agree with."

So Labor, The Greens and all other members of Parliament will be quite within their rights to tell Tony and crew they have no mandate? Or are there different rules that apply once the Coalition form a Government?

It's a pity that the much of the 15% of legislation they opposed was some of the most important to the future of this country.

SueB:

How much legislation failed because the Opposition didn't vote for it?

Nil.None.Zero.

All legislation put to the senate was enacted into law with the help of the Greens.

The policies Labor took to the election were passed with Opposition support.

Policies after the election that the Opposition did not agree with were not passed by the Opposition. They were however, passed by the Independents. Policies that had not been voted on by the electorate.

If the LNP attempts to legislate anything they did not take to an election the Opposition will have every right to vote it down.

allaboutlies:

big joe:

18 Sep 2013 2:51:37pm

No PP the rules are the same, if they want to oppose everything and try to create chaos they can go for it. Actually I hope they do, that will only result in an even bigger flogging for them next time.

big joe:

The Future:

18 Sep 2013 2:45:07pm

Big Joe - Wrong on the numbers(77.9%, not 85%) & blatantly misleading. How about "In the previous Parliament, the LNP under Abbott opposed between 2 1/2 & 4 times more bills than any opposition in the past 20 years". Sounds a little different to your claim, doesn't it? Pity for you it's a FACT:

Darren:

18 Sep 2013 9:20:28am

The big difference is that Gillard and Labor always campaigned on addressing climate change and pricing carbon, whether that be a tax, an ETS or some other means. The infamous lie was a single statement in a single television interview seen by less than 300,000 people and not a campaign policy.

Polysemantic Pete:

18 Sep 2013 11:54:21am

"you all need to get over the fact, your mob had 6 years and were a disaster regardless of your spin, no one believes it except you"

So donna, when Tony, Joe, Andrew and Mathius continually used "budget crisis" and "economic emergency" were they telling the truth? If so, then is Arthur Sinodinos a liar for saying on election night that the economy is doing okay.

Both arguments can't be right, yet you want to lecture us on spin?

BTW, congratulations on your work getting TA elected, who'd have thunk it was all down to you. At least I'll know who to blame for the real mess we are about to get ourselves in, not the fictitious one you lot bang on about.

Double trouble:

18 Sep 2013 12:39:34pm

I find the use of the word mob, when refering to a group of political supporters, an interesting choice.

It is used to portray a group of people with different political views in a negative light. I wonder if it is seen as insulting to our First Nation peoples who use that word in such a positive way when refering to themselves and their extended family and friends.

I find the constant use of the word mob to portray a group of people in a negative light every bit as offensive as climate change disbelivers find the word denier.

Surely:

18 Sep 2013 3:01:24pm

Double trouble ,A mob is a large disorganised crowd, its the English language, its always ment that. What Aboriginals call themselves is irrelevant unless you think they are being racist toward themselves. Your racism meter is turned up far to high.

Polysemantic Pete:

I agree with Surely, you're being way too pedantic and not taking time to put the word in context and give it it's proper meaning.

Ever heard of a mob of sheep? That's the context here, voters blindly following a leader who often jumps invisible fences.

It's use here is different and has nothing to do with how Aboriginals use the term as a replacement word for tribe, clan, family etcetera. I can assure you that none of the Aboriginals I know would ever consent to being thought of as sheep.

Tiger Tim:

18 Sep 2013 11:21:24am

Actually, the LNP revised that after Labor reported the budget deficit level had been revised down by $30bil several months after the May budget.

Also, during the campaign, they categorically said there would not be a surplus in the first term because of the revised blow out of the current budget. If you want to hold them accountable, base it on the facts and not snippets of headlines that suit your whining.

Polysemantic Pete:

" If you want to hold them accountable, base it on the facts and not snippets of headlines that suit your whining."

So the "facts" which were made up from snippets and made their way onto Murdoch front pages to be parrotted endlessly by the TA fan club were actually a demonstration of how to act accountably?

Circumstances have changed and therefore Tony isn't lying. Okay... Circumstances changed for the previous government as well ( the hung parliament that your side couldn't get to rule), yet apparently that makes little difference because we all "know" Julia lied.

Tom1:

Graham H: You are talking rubbish, by saying that no Government during its term can make a decision that they have not promised or not promised prior to an election.

Gillard's broken promise was forced on her by circumstances, as you well know.

Abbott's promise was made knowing the impossibility of making such a prediction so far out, but he made it, and repeated it anyway. The same as 'Immediately stop the boats." These are deceptions, intended to be so. The same as running down the economy.

Abbott is where he is because he fooled people into thinking he had the answers. We now know he has not.

Jilleene:

Tom1:

18 Sep 2013 11:54:36am

Jill: Personally the carbon tax, or price paid by people that want to pollute our atmosphere, makes no difference to my living standards, and that is not because I am wealthy. Three small business men on TV the other night said that they will not be much better off if the carbon price is scrapped.

If you think about it, during the Howard Government there was a huge increase in the price of petrol. It was said we would never cope. We did. We have in the main adjusted to carbon tax. It will be stupid to undo it, and history will judge us harshly if we do.

Abbott is not only going to try and reverse the carbon tax, but he is going to reverse any attempts to convert to other types of energy. He now has a Chief Political advisor who believes like he does that global warming is a sham.

I hope you are not like Abbott and believe that God would not let the earth get warmer. That is a bit of a stretch.

Polysemantic Pete:

18 Sep 2013 1:41:48pm

Jillene, prior to the election (August 2013) Roy Morgan Research conducted a poll of voters in Eden-Monaro to discover what issues were seen as most important to them. 16% said the NBN was the number one priority (note: they weren't asked which model they preferred, so I'm not saying they all wanted Labor's plan). Only 2% thought the Cabon Tax was most important and only 2% put stopping the boats at the top of the list.

lazarus:

18 Sep 2013 4:13:44pm

They've added 4-6 billion over the forward estimates in detention costs and as in the last 7 days 7 boats have turned up we can only wonder when the boats will stop and how much more the detention regime will cost. How big a camp can we afford at Manus before a fully fledged Hospital is needed?

Tom1:

Overit: Well your interpretation of history will probably not go down in any credible history book.

Abbott and Gillard both fought for the votes of the Independents. Gillard won because she had better negotiating skills, and the Independents were too enlightened to trust Abbott.

I think her options were pretty clear, a price on carbon, which was after all Labor policy, or a Tony Abbott led government. She owed it to the Australian people not to let this country fall into his hands any sooner than necessary.

Abbott's "Liar" campaign, supported by the Murdoch press, and various shock jocks has worked a treat if you are a Liberal supporter. As proof of that, you are still repeating it.

OverIt:

18 Sep 2013 7:22:24pm

Tom, you said that Gillard was forced by circumstances to break her promise. I merely pointed out that she did in fact have choices, she certainly wasn't forced, and she had the option of keeping her promise or keeping the Prime Ministership. Are you suggesting she was not in control of her own decisions?

"She owed it to the Australian people not to let it let fall into his hands any sooner than necessary." Given there was no majority, you could equally argue the opposite. The electorates of the independents had several times as many votes for the Libs as for Labor.

No, what she owed the Australian people was to do as she'd previously stated and have "no carbon tax under the government I lead".

There was no Abbott "Liar" campaign, what Gillard said and what she did are on record and these facts cannot be changed retrospectively.

Rather than falling back on the old Murdoch press excuse, I suggest you watch the interview with Gillard in its entirety on Youtube to see what was actually said, because calling people liars when the truth is available to all is a little silly.

Ravensclaw:

18 Sep 2013 12:35:16pm

Yay, multis.

Julia Gillard did not say that just before the last election. There is a full interview on Youtube of the infamous "there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead". Not once does it mention your quote or anything remotely like it.

Davo:

18 Sep 2013 2:48:02pm

Yippee! Remove the carbon tax and all the rebates handed out to business and wage earners. That will save - nothing. One cancels out the other, only the wage eaners will be getting less. I'm sure the power companies will reduce retail rates by 10%.

Tony will be able to get more revenue by broadening the GST and lifting it to 20%. Petrol and import duties should be next, we can pay a lot more for both.

Rae:

Polysemantic Pete:

18 Sep 2013 6:48:07pm

"I'm so waiting for my next much lower electricity bill and lower insurance premiums. HOORAY!"

Careful Rae, many here don't get sarcasm.

Peter Hendy campaigned as Liberal candidate for Eden-Monaro on the strength of a National debate around costs and impacts of the Carbon Tax. Not once did I hear mention a word about petrol prices, despite every local paper between Batemans Bay and Eden running almost weekly articles for months that point out people in this region pay on many occasions the highest fuel price in the state for no discernible reason.

juliet jones:

18 Sep 2013 5:04:01pm

Ah Graham, hypocrisy sits well upon you, it truly does. After you and all the Right wingers on these forums spent years decrying the Gillard government, calling her on everything, true or not, then taking to Rudd, you want the Yank to 'stop banging on about it'? Really? Well, he has every right to and I intend to bang on about the big bad 'budget emergency' lie, the failing economy lie, the idea that we were all going to be swept away by a horde of boat people lie and all the rest of the Liberal BS which has been sprouted by people who just wanted to be the Government and those, like you, who supported them. You don't realise, the boot is on the other foot now; now you are all open to criticism and you will have to cop it sweet. Learn to like it.

rudski:

18 Sep 2013 7:24:34pm

Juliet Jones:" I intend to bang on about the big bad 'budget emergency' lie, the failing economy lie, the idea that we were all going to be swept away by a horde of boat people lie and all the rest of the Liberal BS which has been sprouted by people who just wanted to be the Government and those, like you, who supported them."

---------Labor don't need you to personally campaign for them on TheDrum.

I understand you're passionate and good for you, but the next election is in three years. Relax, sit back and watch. Let's see what happens. But so far the government only got sworn in at 10am and you're already ripping into them like they've been here for 10 years. Give it time.

If the new government sucks they too will be voted out, it happens to bad governments.

It's sad when people treat politics like a sport.

You should vote bad governments out of office and both sides have over time provided bad governments. Recent examples would be Howards last term and Labors recent term was poor.

If more people voted based on policy we wouldn't have the current senators we have, we wouldn't have the politically inapt palmer in parliament.

Did you lose a bet or something?The election is over.Accept the result, Labor don't need you to campaign here on TheDrum.

juliet jones:

18 Sep 2013 8:22:27pm

Labor needs everyone who believes in Labor-or the Greens-to say their bit and you are not going to embarrass me into stopping. I don't hate conservatives and I have always thought that Howard, while making a lot of mistakes (as all politicians do) was 100% right in his fight-which he won- in bringing strong gun reform to this country. Credit where it's due. But in all honesty, I have seen nothing but negativity, anger, lies and paternalistic actions from the Liberal Opposition-now the Government of the day-so yes, I will go on about their mistakes because, let's face it, they're never going to be reported in the Murdoch press or any other paper besides, hopefully, the Melbourne Age or online papers such as the Global Mail and the Guardian Australia, now are they?

Ravensclaw:

18 Sep 2013 8:35:48am

What was the lie the yank? What was the forecast deficit at the time the shadow treasurer made the statement about aiming for a surplus in the first year? It wasn't $30 billion or even a 3rd of that. The big lie was Labor hiding their massive deficit and then releasing details slowly over 12 weeks.

The coalition went to the election NOT claiming to bring the budget to balance in 1 year, but went to the election promising to stabilize the budget and put it on track to a surplus. Now if this promise is broken, by all means hold Tony Abbott and his treasurer to account.

Gillard's lie was a couple of days before her 2010 election she explicitly promised no carbon tax (and didn't mention anything about a price on carbon). Within 2 weeks of securing her election she announced a carbon tax imposed on business with the government being the recipient of the funds.

There is a big difference the yank between Gillard's lie and your poorly conceived strawman.

Peter the Lawyer:

18 Sep 2013 10:36:14am

That is rubbish and you know it. But keep on saying it if it makes you feel better now that your philosophy has been crushed by the vote of the people.

You may think that Tony Abbott is liar if the budget doesn't return to surplus in a year, but I suspect that the vast majority of Australians would not agree with you. All they want to see is a solid performance by the Abbott Government. They want to see the government's on the way to repair after Labor's disatrous stewardship.

Polysemantic Pete:

" All they want to see is a solid performance by the Abbott Government."

Funny, I thought I heard Tony campaigning heavily on issues of trust and accountability. Tony asked me often "who do you trust" and my reply was "perhaps not Labor, but certainly not you".

Do a quick internet search and see how many quotes from Tony Abbott (his own words from his own mouth) there are which directly contradict previous statements he has made. Start with PPL and dead bodies.

Ravensclaw:

Julia Gillard could have formed minority government without the carbon tax. The Greens are too extreme left to side with the coalition.

Julia Gillard had time to retract the carbon tax promise before the election or stick to her principles after the election. Gillard chose to do neither.

Tony Abbott said repeatedly before the election he would not be able to achieve a surplus quickly. The voters (including yourself) knew that. Normal people were comfortable with that. There were no surprises.

You wanna run with wide goalposts for Labor, but needle thin goalposts for the Coalition, then normal non rusted on people will see right through you.

Polysemantic Pete:

18 Sep 2013 3:11:06pm

"Tony Abbott said repeatedly before the election he would not be able to achieve a surplus quickly."

Why only tell half the story Ravensclaw? I don't disagree that Tony stated just what you say. However I also recall him saying a little earlier in the piece that Joe and himself would have the budget in surplus in the first year and then the first term of an Abbott Government.

Eng.:

18 Sep 2013 10:35:18am

Ravensclaw, just so you know what a lie is, here is one. "Gillard's lie was a couple of days before her 2010 election she explicitly promised no carbon tax (and didn't mention anything about a price on carbon)."

In fact, Gillard made it clear IN THE SAME SENTENCE that there would be a price on carbon.?There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead, but lets be absolutely clear: I AM DETERMINED TO PRICE CARBON?. (Julia Gillard, 2010)

The liars are the people who chop up pieces of a sentence and then repeat them out of context.

OverIt:

18 Sep 2013 12:36:17pm

Eng, here is a transcript of the actual quote:

"There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead. What we will do is we will tackle the challenge of climate change. We?ve invested record amounts in solar and renewable energies. Now I want to build the transmission lines that will bring that clean, green energy into the national electricity grid. I also want to make sure we have no more dirty coal-fired power stations. I want to make sure we?re driving greener cars and working from greener buildings. I will be delivering those things, and leading our national debate to reach a consensus about putting a cap on carbon pollution."

Dazza:

18 Sep 2013 11:17:34am

Now we have the Liberal clowns now attempting to justify Abbott's lies (and deceit).

After all your hoo-hah over Gillard's carbon tax? You even now try to claim she made no mention of putting a price on carbon, which she did, even though I, personally, don't believe the man-made climate change rubbish!

Blzbob:

18 Sep 2013 2:53:05pm

There was no carbon tax, had there been one it would have hat to apply to all fossil fuels with no exemptions.It wasn't even a tax on coal, as it did not apply to exported coal.So as you can see there was no tax on carbon emissions, as it was levelled at only certain industrial behaviours.

Roger:

18 Sep 2013 8:38:36am

Interesting how you expect us to take the word/musings/predictions of another rusted on leftie to confirm that the Abbott government has lied - when it is only being sworn in today! Happy to accept whether a government has lied or not after seeing its results in 1 or 2 years, not 1 or 2 hours. We can base a conclusion that the last Labor government lied to the electorate based on its actual record - like the 600 odd times Gillard, Swann and Wong told us they had already delivered a surplus (even on some electorate handouts) before having to admit to a $30 billion plus deficit. You consistently fall for the seeming, not the reality, which is so typical of the Left.

the yank:

18 Sep 2013 9:02:11am

"TONY Abbott has vowed to deliver a budget surplus "as ... to return to surplus. Mr Abbott said on August 15 ... a surplus in our first year and ..." Would you take the word of The Australia newspaper?

The only reason that we will be in debt is because Abbott wants to be known as the builder.

He had no intention of going into surplus. That from the very beginning he didn't see it as a problem. If debt was a problem under Labor why is it no longer a problem? Why does it no longer matter if we spend money we don't have?

You went on and on about the "debt" problem but now you ignore it, why?

The nose:

Anubis:

18 Sep 2013 9:44:10am

Too close to call the winner there Nose,we will have to call for the photo between Repugnant Rupert and Tosser Tony..for my money as Tony was so close on the tail of Rupert in the run home Rupert will probably get it by a nose.

Peter the Lawyer:

18 Sep 2013 10:43:17am

"The Opposition Leader declared it "foolish" to promise a surplus in his first term if the Coalition wins, saying the government's budget numbers were not reliable enough to guarantee an outcome." The Australian 27 August.

In other words, when the LNP found out bad the position really was, after Labor powned up to the fact that they had cocked up the budget the calulations, Tony Abbott sensibly stated that it would be unlikely that the Coalition would be able to produce a surplus in its first term.. Note that the the talk of producing a surplus was not in the first year but in the first term.

No go away Yank and learn some comprehension skills and learn why right wing political thought and action is always superior to the rubbish that the ALP serve to us.

the yank:

18 Sep 2013 12:34:52pm

All you can do is post an attack on me.

If it was foolish on August 24 why wasn't he smart enough to know that just 10 days earlier. How long has Abbott been in politics?

If it is foolish for the LNP why isn't it also foolish for Labor? Labor tried to be honest Abbott made no attempt at honesty because he knew his Bob the Builder dreams were going to blow out the budget but just failed to mention that fact.

You want another one of his lies then read the article on page 10 of today's AFR.

Mudine claims that he was told directly by Hockey that the LNP would not go ahead with the cut of $42 million to the indigenous legal aid funding that the LNP stated as part of their costings.

Polysemantic Pete:

Pete, instead of jumping forward to what Tony said on August 27, why not look at what he was reported as saying by the Australian Financial Review only 12 days earlier.

"Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has recommitted a Coalition government to returning the budget to surplus in its first term but only if the current Treasury forecasts are correct."

Okay, you can argue that he changed his mind because he didn't believe Treasury estimates and forecasts, but how do you reconcile that with something else raised in the the same AFR story where he agreed that the estimates of PEFO were probably the best figures we have to go on. Guess who is responsible for PEFO? One clue, the name starts with a "T", is followed by an "R", then "E", "A", "S", "U", "R"... I'm sure even you are bright enough to complete the word yourself.

If you want to cherry-pick dates, it's probably best to put them in chronological order first.

Polysemantic Pete:

18 Sep 2013 1:54:06pm

Tony Abbott was sworn in today and so I'll give him benefit of the doubt and suggest he probably hasn't lied since midnight. But are we expected to strike out all time he spent in Opposiiton and forget everything he's said prior to today?

seg:

18 Sep 2013 10:35:19am

Especially when Ms Gillard did not actually lie (yes, conservatives will believe almost anything, pity they can't bring themselves to believe in the actual evidence and observational truth of AGW), she said, "There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead, but let me be clear: I will be putting a price on carbon and I will move to an emissions trading scheme." That folks is exactly what she did.

Wining Pom:

Blzbob:

18 Sep 2013 8:53:33am

I think they know the truth, but will not admit it as to not offend those idiots they depend on to put them in power.When people are gullible enough to believe that making the wealthy even more rich will somehow help them to become wealthy, they are ripe for the picking.

Joker:

18 Sep 2013 10:12:52am

'I think they know the truth, but will not admit it as to not offend those idiots they depend on to put them in power.'

Blzbob, the only idiots I see round here, on any blog or forum site are the acolytes of any political party. Most unaligned voters know it doesn't matter how inept or incompetent any party is while in government, we can always count on the sycophants to come out heralding how wonderful their party was, while it was in government or in opposition.

Yay team, we win cause we'd be the guvinmint, seems to be all the political party habitue' are concerned with.

custard:

18 Sep 2013 7:49:49am

Gosh Greg you've got it all worked out. It's a shame you couldn't get your mates in the ALP to listen to you for the last 3 years. Oh BTW the fantasy you speak of regarding confidence comes with a chart as well, it's climbing rapidly too, don't you just hate that Greg?

Old Timer:

18 Sep 2013 8:04:04am

Come on custard, the election is over, stop with all the trolling.

But for what it is worth, confidence can climb because some simple people believe in fairies, moonbeams, and an invisible, weightless, and untouchable saviour in the sky. That is, until the hard reality hits them.

Wining Pom:

Ex-Bookie:

18 Sep 2013 9:40:35am

So the ALP had six years to do something about repairing/renovating The Lodge, but despite squandering billions on all sorts of failures like BER, Pink Batts., Grocery Watch, Fuel Watch, Green Schemes etc etc, they were so dysfunctional that they couldn't work out how to get the job done. But Greg J sure tries hard to convince us they were not ALWAYS total duds?

Couldn't Julia have called on her old AWU mate Bill The Greek? After all, when Julia was a young and naive 35 year old lawyer who didn't know anything about the scams her boyfriend was running, Bill was doing renovations FOR FREE!

lazarus:

18 Sep 2013 4:57:48pm

Howard had 11 years to renovate the Lodge but instead decided to live in Sydney. 300 bil in super profits over 11 years and could not renovate the Lodge because filling pork barrels was more important.

Strange old world the Libs inhabit isn't it, where you can run your Government car as a business vehicle and don't see a problem with it or rip off dementia sufferers without seeing any problems with their actions.

cath:

beeps:

18 Sep 2013 10:42:13am

ooohh...those bad lefties are at us again! They just won't lie down!!

Tell us how money was wasted on the BER? It remains one of the best school building programs in or history. The point being made is that Abbott lied to get elected. "Surplus in the first term" was a lie, never explained, never admitted. Straight for the JWH playbook. And you dummies still bleat about some Murdoch meem from Gillard's history. This will be a govt of silence, nothing to see here, move along....and the Murdoch press will comply. I know, let's have a rally outside parliament with "Tony: Murdoch's bum boy" on big posters. No, leave it for the unhinged right. Enjoy your glory days, chaps and chappets (although you chappets must be getting to know your place by now).

Paul01:

18 Sep 2013 10:03:20am

It will be sadder still when we weekend working casuals lose our penalty rates but hey the guy on the north shore will still have his tax rorts on his salary packaged vehicle and his negatively geared block of flats and his missus will get $75k when she has a baby even though she doesn't work except through the family trust.

din:

OverIt:

18 Sep 2013 12:46:53pm

Some weekend casuals may well prefer to keep a job with no penalty rates, rather than have no job when the company employing them goes under. Those lease car workers recently sacked when Rudd removed the FBT benefits I have no doubt would prefer to keep their jobs and leave any rorting of the system to be picked up by those whose job it is to do so.

Family trust? Have you actually ever met anyone who has one? I personally haven't, and all those men and women I have known who earn $150k a year have sacrificed large amounts of time and incurred large HECS debts to get to that position.

lazarus:

If the company was losing money because it could not afford to operate on weekends then it should shut up shop on weekends and operate Monday to Friday.

Love it how rorting the tax system is all fun and games to the Lib supporters but if someone rorts welfare then it's off to the gallows for them.

Family Trusts, met plenty of people who have them and the majority are there to minimise tax. These days you don't need a large HECS debt to earn $150,000 but you should be able to do without Government assistance, even Sloppy Joe reckons that when he isn't in Australia.

Joan:

18 Sep 2013 12:02:52pm

Labor same as usual left a multibillion debt and unemployment on upward trajectory. Abbott Libs will fix - you bet. Only dimwits, and Labor think 6 years of Labor damage can be fixed in a wink of the eye.

Give us a break:

harry:

18 Sep 2013 8:01:37am

This article seems to make an assumption that government spending drives growth, and since growth is faltering, we need more, not less spending.Strangely the graphs tell a different story, that during the peak of the Swan expansionary spending growth fell and remained below the average for the entire period of the expansion. Perhaps government spending doesn't provide a path to sustainable jobs growth?

Alpo:

18 Sep 2013 8:36:05am

harry, how many times do we have to remind you about the massive contraction of the world economy during the GFC and then the EU debt crisis since 2008? If you understand just a little bit of economics you should be able to easily imagine the same graph without the support of government intervention on the broader economy.... Can you?... The only real issue with government spending over the longer run is that your much admired private sector easily gets addicted to it... and want more, and more.

Waterloo Sunset. 2014:

Alpo:

18 Sep 2013 10:48:51am

Scandinavia and Germany "Liberal"? In the sense of Liberal Party and Neoliberal ideology?.... Do some more research, WS! Germany and the Scandinavian countries are some of the best examples of Social Democracy in action (even when they are controlled by conservatives).... Broadly, Australia has a similar tradition, in spite of some entrenched social-conservatism (such as fear of foreigners). PS. Do you find any similarity between Angela Merkel and Margaret Thatcher?

bill:

Waterloo Sunset. 2014:

18 Sep 2013 2:11:14pm

I have studied it. Unfortunately we won't get the chance to debate it in here with current moderation techniques.

There are certainly aspects that are intertwined. One of the interesting things is the sedulous integration of unions (into reasonable organisations); their mores, standards and adaptation/embracing of needs to produce. Certainly Australia's two left leaning parties could learn a lot.

And as I've said elsewhere, I welcome public/private combined enterprise, however not where services are dominant: government is too all too often unwieldy and wastes resources.

Waterloo Sunset. 2014:

Well, Australia has got itself in a pickle concerning mineral resources. it should have gone into partnerships.

I note today that The Coalition, is calling for more action from lease holders of resource land. Presumably to accelrate revenue and performance.

Perhaps there's a case for a sensible buy back, with lease terminations. However, the correct thing to do is have a cerebral look at how it could be done, not a yelling out of an MRRT (or an NBN) , from a podium. Yelling just startles everyone.

I would announce an inquiry and put the country on notice, thereby giving every vested interest a chance to squeal and be placated/persuaded. Persuaded with statistics and logic. Not bashed over the head and disciplined with slogans eg; 'class warfare'.

Being conciliatory accomplishes one more, although I accept that I make rash, brash comments in here. however that is simply to bring quick attention, because half of the posts don't get up.

Rocky:

18 Sep 2013 8:56:29am

Harry, you misinterpret the economics.

It is not spending per se, but the balance of spending to taxations. If the government is running deficits, it is spending more than it is taxing and as a consequence is adding net liquidity to the economy. When a government runs surpluses, it is taxing more than it is spending, and is therefore removing money from the economy.

If you wish to argue that you can stimulate long-term economic growth by removing money from the economy through excessive taxation, then by all means make your case. It'd be pretty heavy going though.

harry:

18 Sep 2013 11:05:26am

I understand the difference between stimulating and contracting budgetary positions. My point is that actual sustainable jobs are not produced by government stimulus and Mr Jericho's graphs seem to reflect this.

Rocky:

18 Sep 2013 11:49:41am

Stimulus was not about creating long term sustainable jobs. It was about creating short term jobs to keep the economy ticking over and avoid the sort of collapse that leads to long term employment decline. The $64 question is what that chart would look like without the stimulus. Since we cannot do that we can only look at the long-term fate other, similar economies that sought austerity.

Bonnie49:

18 Sep 2013 8:08:55am

It is bad householding policy to put off repairs until a later time as the problem just gets worse and more expensive as time goes by, as any property owner knows. Reading the bit about the Labor Govt not explaining the difference between a budget and a surplus better is really the pot calling the kettle black because you in the MSM did nothing to educate the public either. The MSM should be hanging its collective head in shame.

Old Timer:

18 Sep 2013 8:37:21am

FG, at least Labor started the Lodge repair process in its six year, something that JWH did not even think about in his eleven years because he didn't live there, did he?

On that note, how long before TA decides that the old JWH Sydney lodge, looking out over the 'best harbour in the world', is much better than a run down old Canberra residence, on a roundabout right next to one of the busiest arterial roads in town?

Tom1:

18 Sep 2013 10:22:15am

FG: What do you think will happen as a result of putting a general in charge of his "Sovereign Borders" policy.

Think of the history books. " In the year 2013 Prime Minister Tony Abbott, an ex Jesuit Seminarian, used the resources of the Australian Army and Navy to turn back what he considered to be foreign hordes, from Australian shores. In fact these unfortunate people were, in the main fleeing oppressive regimes in their own country in leaky boats, many of which sunk with loss of life. No guns or other arms were found on these boats, but in some cases the Australian armed services were successful in turning then around, despite international objections." This was a sorry episode in Australian history.

Mark James:

FG, if the ALP had instigated a full repair job on the Lodge, can you imagine the waste and mismanagement headlines if so much as a contractor overcharged or a box of nails went missing?

"Budget blowout on Labor Lodge disaster"

And if a plasterer had so much as grazed a shin during the work, Gillard (or Rudd) would have been held personally responsible, with "Tradie health sacrificed for glitzy Labor refurb" headlines running in the Murdoch tabloids.

Mark James:

The point is, FG, anything Labor did would have been fitted-up to the exact same narrative regardless of how Labor did it.

For example, three times when unemployment fell under Labor, the story was spun as 'Business fears wages breakout', 'Fears of high Aussie dollar', and 'Threat to interest rates' (all News Corp).

What usually might be reported as a postive was reported as a negative.

BER has become short-hand for incompetence and waste, but inquiries found it no more wasteful than most large private-sector projects, and the complaints ratio no greater.

Yes, governments should be held to account for spending taxpayers money, but compare the way Labor was held to account for spending money on school halls with the way the Coalition was held to account for spending $3 billion disarming a country of weapons that did not exist.

How many Australian kids have benefited from better facilities? How many Iraqis benefited from having their country bombed into a sectarian civil war?

Obviously, though, it's not the details that make or break governments but the narrative. And unfortunately, much of the narrative is being shaped by an American billionaire who swore an oath to entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to Australia.

GP :

18 Sep 2013 8:32:20am

Its time for the ALP to put the blow torch to the opposition using the same obstructionist tactics they used while in opposition and calling them for the lies and the untruths they have used. Unfortunately for the ALP the media lead by News Ltd, the AFR and the shock jocks will refuse to be honest and will not give the air time they did for the misinformation spread by the Coalition. The ABC may but its a question of time before funding for the ABC will be cut for taking an independent line. That leaves only the Guardian to carry on the fight.I am also curious when the costings will be released by the PBO. Hopefully that will also show the misinformation and the dodgy numbers the Coalition during the election period.

Forrest Gardener:

Jess:

18 Sep 2013 11:36:57am

so you don't think that the opposition missed a chance to raise the bar of politics in the lower house at all?

Instead of producing well thought out alternate policy and presenting it they just said no. I truely believe that if they had better policy independants would have voted for it. Even if the independants didn't the Opposition could have steered HoR towards that way. (Remember there are private members bills and alternate methods of introducing bills)

Mark James:

18 Sep 2013 10:32:20am

James, if it's true that the Coalition supported 80% to 90% of the legislation put through by Labor (where does this figure come from?) doesn't it give lie to Coaltion/News Corp claims that Labor were the worst government in living memory and everthing they did (or tried to do) ended up being a total disaster?

Drum Major:

18 Sep 2013 9:16:38am

I'd like to see the ALP take a different approach. One where they treat the voting public as intelligent, one where they explain policy and the decisions that they would make, one where they offer bipartisan support where appropriate and one where they clearly articulate an alternative position where they choose not to support the Government.

The last three years has been a race to the political bottom ... its time that both political parties started to move up the food chain again.

Forrest Gardener:

paradise:

18 Sep 2013 11:08:50am

Habitual dullards are out today, preaching to the empty and self-centred. This is a day when the primitives are cutting back on climate change initiatives, to our detriment. But if you know little, you don't need to WURRY.

Huonian:

There was a time when your articles were based on factual information that you'd ferreted out of various places. And had some considerable value as a result. But this one is rubbish.

I know the commentariat has some adjusting to do, given we now have a PM who isn't driving it nuts with several thought bubbles every day.

Greg, if you've nothing to say, say nothing.

The election was just over a week ago and the new Government is being sworn in today. The new Parliament has yet to meet. You should wait until you actually have some stuff to write about. And leave the stupid stuff to the likes of Bob Ellis.

Smitty:

18 Sep 2013 8:38:18am

To me Abbott's smartest move for the last 3years has been to change position on every subject, over and over again. How can he be accused of lying when at one time or another he said yes and no to everything. Climate, GST, education, NDIS, asylum policy. Yep, he just played people for dupes and they swallowed and they followed. Now it's the economy. Same m.o. Nothing new.

Darren:

Peter the Lawyer:

Keynes was right, for once, when he said:?When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir??

You Labor supporters are so inept and one-eyed that you can't seem to realise that what was once acceptable or right may be wrong years later.

My favourite example of this is your cry (untrue) that the ALP saved Australia from the GFC. You seem to imply that Labopr deserved another shot at Government based upon this imaginary feat. However, the GFC occurred 5 years ago.. tyhe budget is now in defict by a staggering amount and Commonwealth debt has blown out to a vast sum. Even if Labor's policies did help get us through the GFC, that is no reason to think that the same polcies are working now.

Smitty:

18 Sep 2013 11:47:58am

I'll repeat what I've posted before for those can get their heads around it. If you think the GFC ended 5 years ago, visit Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Crete, U.K. or U.S. where massive amounts of money are still being poured in to support the economy. The GFC is still very much with us and is almost entirely the reason for the decline in government revenue. Suggesting Abbott changes his mind to suit the facts?? No,no. He changes it to suit the audience he's addressing. Has done so repeatedly.

mahaish:

if the government didnt run a budget deficit to the tune of 4% plus of gdp over the last 5 years peter,

you would most likely be out of a job, lost your house, and the bank you bank with may have been insolvent.

the government debt which is a consequence of the cumilative deficits the former government ran, is essentially, a hedge against the deleveraging and balance sheet adjustment going on in the private sector over the last 5 years since lehman brothers collapsed.

the defict and hence the debt adds to the net worth of the private sector. it helps insulate us from the worst of economic travails as the private sector sorts out the mess it got itself into when the private sector debt blew out under costello and howard.

Stuffed Olive:

Darren:

18 Sep 2013 9:48:46am

Also everyone has neglected to mention that he is not staying in a single bed in a dormitory. There is a suite there for dignitaries and diplomats, and it would be much more likely that he is staying in the suite.

macca :

P38:

18 Sep 2013 10:17:29am

Dean, I suggest you read a good economic history book about Chancellor Bruning You will find that thrift is not always as beneficial as you believe. Nice things, facts, they are an antidote to faith, although not, unfortunately, to bigotry

garybenno:

18 Sep 2013 10:03:37am

"Tax payer funds are sacrosanct and should not be wasted" yeah sure!! Abbotts "signature" policy PPL, health insurance rebates, are just welfare for the wealthy a la John Howard. All government payments should be asset and income tested so that if you are well enough off you don't either need the help or get it.

JRM:

GregL:

18 Sep 2013 9:13:15am

Tony Abbott and his cheer squad within the MSM ran a brilliant campaign that made sure that the Labor government could not get its economic message across through.

Despite a mountain of quality evidence that pointed to competent mangement of the economy during the GFC and thereafter the ALP was cornered into talking only about surplus. The debate was never about the fundamentals of the economy which are sound, it was always about "breaking promises", a distraction that worked a treat in political terms.

The spin has already begun. The mid year forecast delayed becasue of "confidence"; give me a break. Reminds me of when the then NSW Police Commissioner decided not to close down illegal gambling joints because he did not want the people employed there to have a bad Christmas...simply unbelievable!

The delay it is really about the fact that the new government does not actually have a coherent economic policy, it has slogans, and needs to cobble something together. What we will no doubt see in the next couple of years is a continuation of the Kenyesan orthodoxy of the past. Why? Because it worked.

Alpo:

18 Sep 2013 9:56:56am

I agree GregL, but things may get truly interesting as soon as the ideological Neoliberals and Libertarians start knocking at the Abbott's door hard. This Government is in a mess of self-contradictions, their rhetoric of the past 6 years will come back to bite them big time... the baseball bats are ready....

allaboutlies:

tsj:

18 Sep 2013 9:45:30am

I think the real point of this article (which from many of those who have commented, is clearly missed), is to justify the state of the economy and of Labor's handling of it, which has been so trashed, for so long, by the coalition. Now in government themselves, and not in the so-called "glory days of the Howard years" it will be interesting to see what adaptations will be required to steer Australia towards continued prosperity.

If you re-read the article in summary, it makes more sense:

"As the dismal state of The Lodge demonstrates to us all, saving money by not spending it on areas that need funding doesn't make the need go away. That same lesson should be applied in politics...Which brings us to the Government's new economic position...you would think shifting to surplus was an easy step of just cutting that great gob of waste and voila surplus heaven...But it seems now, through background briefings given to the AFR, that Joe Hockey is suddenly a Keynesian...Gone is the talk of living within our means and not spending borrowed money. Now the message is stimulus! While this shift will no doubt infuriate the ALP who had to defend the charges of economic mismanagement all because they did not deliver a surplus, the ALP has only itself to blame for not using the past five and a half years to educate the voters that a budget deficit or surplus is not a signifier of economic health or ill."

Robert:

18 Sep 2013 9:51:26am

So lets see now, in just 7 days Tony has managed to p**s off the Indonesians, created a backlash amongst his own members for appointing 1 female minister only, not just any female but Julie Bishop for gods sake, the promised pefo statement that was to be delivered within 90 days of government has been tossed aside, and the surplus that is so drastiscally needed to avert the "crisis" will be delivered in, wait for it, 2023.

Great work son!

In better news., Tony has been gifted an economy that has created 1 million jobs in the midst of a global recession, the lowest interest rates in our nations history, low inflation, low taxes, low debt, a strong dollar, continued GDP growth, record investment, a booming share market and a AAA rated economy.

Itis A.A.G.:

18 Sep 2013 1:31:19pm

Mark James: Seven boats with asylum seekers carrying 480people have arrived in Australia between 7 - 17 September 2013.Fourty eight people per day who will have to be housed, clothed, NewStarted. What about the more than 100.000 homeless Australians who sleep in cars or in the open on these bitterly cold days and nights? The children cannot go to school. The parent(s)cannot present themselves for an interview (no warm showersare available to these hapless and helpless Australians...) Jeez.

Darren:

DaveS:

18 Sep 2013 11:37:57am

OK, lets do that shall we, wait , say three months.I think Mr Abbotts three word slogans will come back to haunt him.....1 Stop the boats. STOP being the operative word. This complicated issue was dumbed down to a catch cry and now MUST happen. No ifs buts or coconuts.2 Scrap the carbon tax. Already proving difficult and may not happen at all.3 Stop the waste. There's not much left I'm afraid. Am I the only one who knows a public servant got a MILLION DOLLAR payout for falling off a chair...seems like the $180K study was more preventative than waste....catchy slogans are effective but a real pain as they HAVE to be introduced

A happy little debunker:

tsj:

"As the dismal state of The Lodge demonstrates to us all, saving money by not spending it on areas that need funding doesn't make the need go away. That same lesson should be applied in politics..."

This is an important point and one which the new government should heed. Mr. Abbott is calling today's abolition of the Climate Change Authority and the Climate Commission, and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, a day of action. In light of the latest findings on the truth of human impact on climate change, released yesterday, I would call it a day of blatant inaction and ignorance.

The instigation and implementation by the Labor Government of these agencies dedicated to climate change research and development, was a smart move for our country's future and for the world.

Today, we see Australia take a big step backward into the ignorant past, in the name of cost cutting (or plain arrogance).

Having only one woman in cabinet may be embarrassing for some, but to have elected a government which has neglected to assign a dedicated minister for the world-leading, highly important portfolio of Science (oh, sorry, it is in there somewhere, distributed god knows how, amongst several disparate portfolios); and who is committed to allowing big polluters to continue unabated (instead ably assisted by the removal of a price on carbon); and who are removing the MRRT (a profit based tax, which although falling short of projections, did in fact raise significant funds which could have continued to be put to good budgetry use), is by far, the biggest embarrassment of all.

paradise:

18 Sep 2013 11:06:01am

Quite right. We have just had our warmest ever winter. Not one month has been below average for over thirty years. The savages are cutting out climate change initiatives we need. Cuts means lowered activities, lower expenditures on essentials, less consumption for the retailers. If Abbott's daughters have daughters and so on, they'll face a stuffed world with a family involved in inactivity and denial. Poo.

DaveS:

18 Sep 2013 11:24:30am

Agreed. No science minister at a time when you would think one would be essential.Without one though the pesky scientists and their theories aren't heard, but I think that's the idea.Sad , backward and above all else reckless.Queue the 'your just a rusted on X' replies now...

Politically Incorrect:

koalaburger:

18 Sep 2013 10:06:50am

Even on Q & A the Labor message was slapped down. Bill Shorten in responding to a question about the economy was outlining the low interest rates, low unemployment, triple A ratings and survival of the GFC. He got part way through and Tony Jones stopped him because he was "Just repeating Labor talking points." The positive message about Labor achievements was so thoroughly swamped by MSM propaganda and scared ABC reporters the voters only ever got one side of the story. This was as close to a Coup my media I have seen outside a South American Junta.

I Love Polls:

18 Sep 2013 10:11:52am

First it was a "budget emergency" and now "there is a very serious deterioration in our budgetary situation." How quickly the spiel changes. But if things aren't quite as urgent as they kept telling us, why delay the MYEFO till January? Hockey says "spend big over Christmas". What then? Then they release the truth about their plans, the guillotine comes crashing down and people are left regretting every holiday they took or gift they bought. Trust your instincts, not the government.

Jess:

mahaish:

18 Sep 2013 10:26:23am

"Too often a deficit gets viewed interchangeably with "debt". It does indeed take a long time to pay off debt, but the reason it usually takes a long time to move from a deficit to a surplus is not because you have to pay off a deficit, but because reducing the size of the deficit is in effect reducing the amount of demand in the economy provided by the government"

there is lot of mythology surrounding this whole deficit and debt debate.

the government financial deficit is dollar for dollar the private sectors financial surplus. it actually adds net financail assetts and hence net worth to private sector balance sheets, and as you rightly say to domestic demand. this is entirely desirable in a period which has seen the build up of private sector debt, and now the painfull deleveraging thats going on.

the government debt isnt like yours or my debt. when the government runs a deficit, those deficits can be held as reserve/deposits , cash or treasury debt. a deficit is a net reserve add to the banking system, which the central bank then through its intermediation in the banking system undertakes a liquidity swap by changing the portfolio composion of the deficit. essentailly converting reserves to other financial assetts, including treasury debt.

the government is essentiallly borrowing back its own money.

the debt can theoretically be paid back in a blink of an eye. its mereely a question of adjusting balances on a electronic spreadsheet. debt service is a issue, but the central bank through the power of infinite liquidity can flatten the yield curve to whatever extent it chooses, and hence keep the debt service managable and below the growth rate in gdp. but we must also remember the debt service is private sector income

in fact its arbitrary as to why the government needs to create any public debt. since we use interest rate targeting by decree, there is no need to issue treasury debt to manage liquidity in the interbank money market. the government can just create deposits and not issue any debt. its pure blind neo classical ideology that we issue treasury debt on the grounds of it being a anti inflationary measure.

let me pose this question. whats more inflationary, a treasury bond or a bank deposit. its a trick question ;)

its not the portfolio composition of the deficit that matters but the size of the deficit as to whether its inflationary or not.

itsa clear to me by mr hockeys utterences on the the government debt, that he doesnt really understand the accounting .

Esteban:

BJA:

18 Sep 2013 10:27:00am

The brokest thing in Australia is a piece of lunacy just being implemented.There are two reasons for this brokenness.Firstly, the boat people coming to Australia are not part of a military invasion.It is totally inappropriate that a military person be given any executive role in what is a fundamentally civilian matter.When are the disappearances going to start?This is not Argentina in the days of the Generals or Chile under Pinochet.This is Australia,and as an Australian I vehemently object to a military person being put in charge of Australian civilian institutions.This is not just a failure to appreciate the separation of powers which we have in Australia. This is a worse mangling of our government institutions than has ever happened before.Secondly, has anyone given any thought to what might happen if General Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono were to put a three star general in charge of turning back the boats coming from Australia?The people of Australia have just performed a mass lunacy.The people in government in Canberra are, by and large, fools and Abbott is the most foolish of them.

Ture Sjolander:

18 Sep 2013 10:27:24am

Seriously!If I would be the First President of Australia in a modern Democratic Republic I would demand having that ugly old shack, The Lodge, The Sydney Bridge and The Opera House demolished. Further on I would close the sewerage Bondi Beach for good and move the Government/Parliament to Darwin.It is all over rated and very pathetic the whole lot.

A Second in Charge leader they can push around like this:"You have to live in this old shack" Mr Prime Minister!But a First In Charge Leader a President can decide where he/she wanna live.That is a sharp difference!

Jess:

18 Sep 2013 11:55:48am

do you know why for the main part day to day government isn't in the tropics? Weather. Sydney, Melbourne, Canberra, Adelaide and Perth haven't lost days to cyclones, typhoons or anything irregulear weather conditions. (I exclude extreeme weather events that happen once in the blue moon like bushfires).

Politically Incorrect:

Fran:

18 Sep 2013 10:29:39am

I don't see how Labor when in government could possibly have used that time to educate the public on the economy, as Greg suggested. The media was ganged-up against them, & the only stories they would publish were those critical of Labor, or those designed to destabilise it. ABC was just as guilty of this as the commercial media - though perhaps to a lesser degree. They had no chance of getting any message out, or of getting the slightest acknowledgement for their many achievements. The sorry state of our media is a blight on our democracy.

micka:

18 Sep 2013 10:48:29am

Ah, Greg. Those who oppose the Abbott government are going through a number of stages of political emotion on the way to reaching acceptance. Currently, they are at the anger stage, as your article shows.

Sarah:

FAIR GO:

18 Sep 2013 10:52:23am

So, staying at the AFP Training College is Tony Abbott "reinforcing that he is proud of his masculinity". Does this mean that you believe that Julia Gillard set the standard for being proud of (her) masculinity, through her precedent of also staying at this institution? Or is this just another case of your anti-Abbott bias coming through?

J.T:

I love Keynesian's like Paul Krugman and evidently Mr Jericho, it reminds me of a story told my Mike Munger, economist and political commentator.

The story:

This, this is a story, in fact, come back with me to a world where we don't know very much about the germ theory of pathology.

It's 1820. And one afternoon you pick up your daughter, and she's really hot and you think "oh she's got a fever, I better call the doctor." And so you call the famed Dr. Krugman. And Dr. Krugman, he's a professional, he's extremely dedicated, he comes to your house, and he says: "Your diagnosis is correct, she has a fever."

He pulls out a small blade, this is 1820 after all, and he's forced to use the theories he has available to him. And he opens a small vein on her wrist and he takes half a pint of blood. He says, "call me if it doesn't get better."

Two hours later her fever has not abated, in fact, if anything its gotten worse. He takes a half pint of blood. By midnight her fever is unbelievably high. He takes a half pint of blood. Four in the morning, she dies. He says, "My God, we didn't bleed her enough."

Every single article Greg Jericho and Paul Krugman writes is basically that theme...There's still a recession, the stimulus must not have been big enough. The only conceivable interpretation is the stimulus isn't big enough, it can't be that the underlying theory is incorrect.

And to be fair, instead of picking on Greg or Paul, I could have made it Dr. Friedman with pro-market prescriptions.

We just don't know much about the macro economy. We should not think of the macro economy as a machine with levers to pull and dials to turn. We should think of it as an ecosystem. Ecosystems are enormous and complicated, and have relationships among species that we may not know much about. You lose one species, the entire ecosystem could collapse. We could get no growth in ways that are very complicated. We don't know enough to say we need a stimulus or we need more markets, it's an ecosystem it's not a machine.

paradise:

18 Sep 2013 12:44:51pm

What contrived garbling, not related to economic sense as applied to anything relevant. Are you a primitive mediaevalist like Abbott, or merely attempting but failing to amuse? If you don't know what you are taliking about and don't know what to do, try reading, or re-reading, Keynes, Schumpeter, Galbraith, E R Canterbery (sic), Hayek, Friedman, the LOT, and come up with some nonmumbojumbo. The economy is not a social animal, nor is it any ecosystem. Applied social democracy is what we need to guide policy for the benefit of all, by compromise and consensus. Some stimulus for clearly well-argued reasons is good, Keynes being a best guide more often than not.

J.T:

I have read all of them. I have a degree in economics, I have worked as an economic analyst.

As someone who has studied and worked as an economist, let me tell you....macro economics is one of the biggest frauds being perpetrated in all of academia, all of government and all of financial markets.

Macro economics is a a guessing game for social engineers, rent seekers and those who think they can control a society and its economy.

It is the antithesis of freedom, individual liberty and more important, a free society.

Patrick53:

18 Sep 2013 11:20:48am

How come no refugee boat arrivals on the news recently ?. Theyre still coming but all of a sudden the media has lost interest in our "Border Emergency'' . Anyone who got conned and voted for this rabble do you now realise that they are having a great old laugh at how they dazzled you with their lies and half-truths, supported of course by a compliant media .

K Karp:

18 Sep 2013 11:22:22am

The Australian voter has given their democratic opinion. Its that simple really. Abbotts speech about Australia been open for business again. Showed leadership that Australians have NOT seen in the last 6 years.

JRM:

Bob42:

18 Sep 2013 2:20:25pm

Egypt recently went to the polls and democratically elected a government, they quickly realised that the new government could not deliver on it's promises and the public held mass demonstrations resulting in the new government being ousted. There is a clear warning here to Abbott, live up to those blood oaths quickly.

merlin:

18 Sep 2013 11:35:16am

Exactly, precisely and spot on. So stop whinging.Mr. Abbot warned us all on national television that he is a lier,Who can't be trusted with the truth, we chose to take that as meaning he was incrediblyHonest.We voted for him and we love him, don't we?Let's watch that talent go to work, coswe need to experience the results of political naivety before we can truly appreciate the responsability Of safeguarding our democracy.Sit back and enjoy the ride, It certainly aint gonna be dull now the dim are playing with the steering.As long as the joint aint totally totalledsomeone might have a go at gettin it goin again.By the way, ''We still need to stop the boats '' and ''This is worst government in the histoy of blah blah blah''Yes darlings, the surplus is buggered, How wou all gonna live with that now?Love it!

Stirrer:

18 Sep 2013 11:47:22am

'Not surprisingly the Abbott Government has thus far been more smybolic than substantative"The LNP has always indulged more in delusion and fraud than substance.None more so than the Howard/Costello years. In 1996 Household debt in Australia was approx. 50% of disposeable income; in 2007 it was 145%-the so called "growth" in those years was fraudulent- it was all funded by debt.

On the global scale one should read 'Twilight of the Gods" in the Economist " The extraordinary growth in finance before the crisis both fed and fuelled a rapid rise in private sector debt"One should also take a look at the research by the National Bureau of Economic Research analysing 138 years of economc history in 14 advanced countries which proves that high levels of PRIVATE debt cause severe recessions.The last thing one should do is take any notice of what the new Treasurer says.

Greg says 'If the economic situation is dire then a Government should be able to inspire confidence by outlining what will be done to deal with it, In the end the ALP failed to do this" It sure did and in that it let itself and the country down terribly.i very much doubt that a Government stuck in an 18th century mind set of a feudal society and with a proven record of economic and political fraud will deal with reality either.I doubt if its narrow minded, self centred, short sighted,egotistical and in the end self destrucive followers will want it to.

Pete:

18 Sep 2013 11:49:52am

What the electorate found so objectionable about Labor and Swann, in admittedly a slightly inchoate way, was that despite the economy going through a mining boom, Labor had run up a huge deficit. Wasteful fantasies like the Pink Batts debacle, and to a certain extent the BER with many of its 'not-really-needed' buildings and host of rip-off tradies and building companies didn't help. Labor did nothing to disabuse themselves of the comparison to drunken sailors, or CUB FIFOs in Perth on leave, depending on which generation you come from. The Liberals certainly know how to spend money too, but they seem to do it in a way that's not perceived as so stupidly wasteful, probably because they steer clear of social engineering exercises.

GraemeF:

stampede:

18 Sep 2013 1:04:12pm

Excellent points. The Lodge has been in need of repairs (such as a new roof and leaks) for a long time. The LNP's history on infrastructure is not good and under Howard was responsible for running down essential services like health and roads while boasting about how much of a surplus they achieved. It's just silly.

However it beggars belief that Abbott is worried about waste when as Opposition leader he used his entitlements for personal book signing appearances and for participaton in sports. And then blamed an admin error. What? He didn't recognise the car was a government provided vehicle when he got in? The No-Fibs website has a lot of info on this.

mushroom:

18 Sep 2013 1:23:20pm

Anouther good old labor rouser Greg but you lost the election remember and I can see by the comments the lefties in true form having their private forum mainly to themselves with only the odd pesky coalition supporter to deal with.

But times are a changing friends enjoy it while you can the days for the drum are numbered.

Robert:

beacypete:

18 Sep 2013 1:30:09pm

Well at last the wait is over and Tony Abbott and his crew are installed. We urgently need to get those boats stopped right now because they are no doubt full of people who want to blow up the scared old people, and those selfish rich people or dumb poor people who voted for the coalition. I think the opposition should immedately start an Abbott style fear campaign on every coalition policy. It works! We need to jettison facts which don't matter and focus on fear and outrage every day using every resource of social media leavened with healthy dose of ridicule and sarcasm. These are the strategies that the Murdoch press proved are most effectively employed in Australia.

Bob42:

18 Sep 2013 5:25:21pm

Not only does Labor has a mandate to be an effective opposition, it has an obligation to work tirelessly to disrupt, destabilise, denegrate, frustrate and sabotage all government efforts. To do everything in it's power to bring down the government.

Mark James:

Mycal:

18 Sep 2013 2:05:53pm

Good article and to be honest it does tickle me, the ALP lost the debt and deficit debate, they're out of office because of it and, low and behold the Libs start spruiking the same line. However it's nice to know that they are not total economic idiots. I'd rather a back flip than a recession.

Of course one lesson the ALP might learn is that they can't put off reform either.

Pollyanna:

18 Sep 2013 2:10:51pm

If the Lodge needs repairs they have to be done. After all, we the people own the Lodge. I'm optimistic about a more productive government. I'm confident Bronwyn will be an excellent Speaker. I'm happy to have a Social Conservative Social Democrat Prime Minister. My grandfather the 1890's Shearer would have been unhappy with Julia Gillard in the Lodge with her hairdresser. I hope Albo becomes the Leader of the Opposition. I believe he is a good person. Our economy enters a transition stage, and the age of entitlement may be over, but I'm confident of better times ahead. Cheers!

beacypete:

18 Sep 2013 2:20:05pm

John Steinbeck once said "if I wanted to destroy a nation I would give it to much, and I would have it on its knees miserable, greedy and sick". There you have it - the prevailing mood in Australia - miserable, greedy and sick. It's the sentiment which the Abbotts and Murdochs of this world love. A conservative paradise.

Rob:

18 Sep 2013 4:15:03pm

If you need proof of the truth in Steinbeck;s words you need look no further than the U.S.A.And our PM wants us to copy their IR- environmental and education systems to go along with what we have already copied in social injustices, tax evasion and business ethics.

Rob:

18 Sep 2013 2:31:16pm

i just heard the PM say his Government will be all about values and not idealogy.

Seeing as he has cancelled pay increases for aged care workers while at the same time promising women of "calibre" i,e highly paid ones-$75G for having a baby -funded in part by a drop in the income of retirees one wonders whose "values".And seeing he is killing off the renewable energy industry one must see it is ALL about idealogy.Only numbskuls believe anything the man says.

seajae:

18 Sep 2013 2:48:19pm

Not having any idea about the costs involved in building renovations is very obvious with all these whingers. "Gillard stayed their", well yes she did and it would have cost a lot more for the work to be done by doing so. It is much cheaper to do renovation work on an empty house because you do not have to clean it all up every day, you do not have to put things back each night, you do not have to avoid working near the people living there so there fore it is quicker and cheaper but then people not involved in building dont realize this or ignore it so they can throw crap. Abbott has shown a great deal of sense and the costs will now be lower and the work completed much quicker, you lot really need to get a brain or start using the one you have.

Rene:

seajae you blather on about how stupid other people are and the proceed to make a fool of your self, "Gillard stayed thier" can you tell us who else has such poor English or is it just you.

Did you bother to read the story or follow the links before you put your foot in your mouth. "Julia Gillard when she was prime minister stayed in exactly the same AFP quarters that I'm sure Tony Abbott will be staying in, so there's nothing that new about that" said Mr Albanese

Jay Somasundaram:

18 Sep 2013 3:02:53pm

One of the new PM's first tasks was to sack 3 department heads. Now, the question is whether he is going to keep his word about reducing expenditure by attrition. Is he going to appoint new staff, or make do with less? Or is it going to be "do as I say not as I do"?

What happens if an MP or Minister quits - is he going to make do with less? I suspect that if he is pressed, he will argue that these positions are too critical. But why? What exactly are they doing that can't be done by someone else already on the payroll?

Mark R:

18 Sep 2013 3:39:00pm

Anyone else find it very suspicious that we no longer have a Science Minister but now have a 'Sports Minister'? wouldnt have anything to do with Abbott making deals with the Sporting party independant whose senate vote he needs?

Mark R:

18 Sep 2013 3:42:20pm

"was that despite the economy going through a mining boom, Labor had run up a huge deficit."

the mining boom was essentially over before the ALP were elected.. if ANYONE wasted the mining boom "windfall" it was John Howard who spent $400 odd BILLION over ten years giving out middle class welfare payments..

Damien of Brighton:

18 Sep 2013 4:08:17pm

The problem with Keynesian economics is that one day the excessive money spent has to be paid back thus causing a contraction. That is why interest rates in the 80s became the way governments could control contraction and expansion. People borrowing for profitable industries and paying interest rate (be they high or low) were the ones to make economic growth more steady.

In the GFC, European governments had to use Keynesian again because interest rates were already at rock bottom trying to stimulate the economy.

Here in Australia we had a Government that didn't think to lower the interest rate, was hell bent on re-election in 2010 and squandered a good fiscal outlook.

So can we leave Keynesian economics back in the 50s and go able to lowering interest rates as a method stimulating growth.

jess:

hawkie:

18 Sep 2013 4:47:00pm

Unfortunately for most Australians they get their news and information from Murdoch press and Channel 7 & 9 news. There can't be balanced discussion when the bulk of the population are being fed the nonsense the Courier Mail, Telegraph and the commercial news channels sprouting.Julie Bishop was caught out misrepresenting a conversation with the Prime Minister O'Neill from PNG - nothing said.Mathais Cormann commenting on a criticism of the election policy costing's from the a senior economist from Merrill Lynch - he's wrong he doesn't know what he is talking about. Joe Hockey - enough said.

Bart:

18 Sep 2013 4:58:49pm

On the other hand, the turmoil and disarray of having to bicker over the ministry has continued on day 1 of 'action' where, via the bitchy and unessessary knifings of dept secretaries, Abbot basically handed the public a $ 10 million dollar bill. It ain't broke!

burke:

18 Sep 2013 4:58:56pm

The railway into Darwin was funded by the Howard government. It is increasingly relevant for mining, freight , agriculture and tourism. Long term it should be a good investment. It seems to be overlooked, but it is here and it is working.

Pietro JK:

18 Sep 2013 5:06:28pm

In other news, Barnaby fell asleep while getting a briefing on his portfolio on his FIRST day in the job! Oh and they knifed his portfolio secretary. Good luck rural Oz, this is gonna cost you big time.

Tess:

18 Sep 2013 5:46:15pm

John Howard said we'd never have a GST, Julia Gillard said we'd never have a Carbon tax, Tony Abbott was dead against Paid Parental Leave. Liberal or Labour, they all lie so there is no point arguing that they dont.

The main issue for me is, why haven't we got the correct people in the ministry?

Perhaps I'll get one of my drivers to cover reception for the day and hell I may as well get my accountant to do HR.Business should be booming with the people in the wrong positions.

seajae:

18 Sep 2013 10:54:19pm

your full of it, you didnt vote liberal. Gillard lied, howard went to an election on his reversal, so did abbott and he has picked his best possible team in his eyes, as pm that is his right, if you dont like it tough. You lot that just want to bitch about abbott are really getting pathetic with your own lies, like we really believe someone with your post would ever vote liberal.

Allan:

18 Sep 2013 7:32:28pm

Some of the ALP and Green supporters are quite naive in their criticism of right-wing ideologies. Let me break the myths for you:

1. Right wingers believe in climate change. But we do NOT care. You see, the only reason to put one forward is because it is politically correct. What's important is the lifehood and looking after ourselves. What good is having an extra tree when you can make more money cutting it down?

2. Only socialists care about having an xx number of women in the cabinet (or any job for that matter). As long as someone does his / her job, it doesn't matter whether it's a robot/donkey/human doing it. Productivity is the only benchmark we care about.

3. Face it, lefties pronouncing doom/gloom of the present government were saying the same things about how "LNP would be seen through by the people of Australia" before the election. See who won the election? Apparently most voters do not agree with many of the commenter on this forum.

4. Some of you said that Indonesians not agreeing to "turn-back-boat" policty is a negative to the government? Well, who cares about what the Indonesians think? As long as we turn those boats back in the international / Australian waters, Indonesians can't do anything about it.

5. Reduction of spending's purpose is aimed at reserving self-wealth. To an individual, national budgetry surplus/deficit means jack-all. However, if reduced spending means reduced / stable tax level, then people will support it.P.S. I can tell you many LNP voters do not support the paid maternity scheme.

Now, I basically said many of what we think / believe but unable to say due to political correctness on an official level. Yes, most politicians are liars (including LNP/ Labor/ Green), however, people vote based on their ideology and self-interest. Apparently, more voters agree with the economic/social right leaning parties this time round than the left.

rockpicker:

18 Sep 2013 10:12:19pm

Reminds me of Telstra once they sold it. No maintenance, crap copper. Told Abbott that face to face in early 2000s. Told me my phone system was marvellous, he didn't have to use it, it was in regional Australia. Couldn't give a stuff, still doesn't.

firthy:

19 Sep 2013 2:24:21am

I couldn't get past this line without comment:

"but the reason it usually takes a long time to move from a deficit to a surplus is not because you have to pay off a deficit"

But if the cost of servicing that debt is huge (as it has been in certain European countries) then that will make the task of moving to a surplus all the more difficult. Greg you simply cannot continue running up deficits without it coming back to bite you - and when it does, as the greeks et al have found out, it bites hard. very hard. Better to keep the debt within reasonable levels in the first place.

DENIS:

19 Sep 2013 8:01:52am

In pining for a return to former years of 'relaxed and comfortable' stability through governing as an Adult, one overriding fact escapes their LNP schemes, planning... the world has gone through a change in six years preventing any return to times of comfortable yore... 90% of all internet activity since the systems introduction (imagine the traffic over the next six years... with innovations not even thought of yet), home solar power use from 7,000 to 1 million and building, international cities pumping up public transport against more motorways to tackle breakdowns/gridlocks in moving people around for the 'reckless'' motive of keeping the econmy humming (in Australia, a fall off in 20's demographic choosing public transport over cars because of apps, iphone, internet time), an acceleration internationally by nations to come to grips with climate threats that, like the internet, will keep building, instability in foreign climes now placing refugee movements (in a now 7.1 billion world population and increasing) on overload just for starters. For a reality check on the dinosaur intellignsia now faced with today's world on overdrive, check the swearing in pic against those of incoming Menzies, Fraser, Howard govts and play 'spot the difference'... oh, and don't forget, one picture is worth a thousand words.

R.Ambrose Raven:

19 Sep 2013 8:14:23am

Use taxes to fund public trandsport infrastructure.

A closer working relationship between governments and the private sector in the provision of infrastructure has the potential for huge waste much more than efficiency gains. Infrastructure by its nature has especially external externalities in which the quality of public policy can make a huge difference to ultimate project costs and benefits.

?Hybrids, like the public-private transport and city precinct partnerships that are always cloaked in confidentiality clauses, now have a vice-like commercial grip over all urban development. Sydney's planning nightmare is a textbook example of how this can go terribly wrong.?

In practice, private funding does not discourage 'white elephant' infrastructure, despite the theory that if the project has to earn a commercial return and if the private sector bears all the risk inherent in the project, PPPs provide discipline on a sector not famous for this quality.

Few infrastructure projects lend themselves to simple revenue collection. A good part of the benefits are often external, unable to be collected as revenue (a toll road delivers congestion relief to those who don't use it, as well as to those who pay). In many cases there are irresistible social pressures to supply the service at less than cost. In just as many cases, the service is supplied in a monopolistic way (no point in having two competing water pipes), so pricing can't be left to the free market.

Universal experience is that the private sector is particularly skilled at shifting residual risk to the public sector. Conversely, the profit-seekers will naturally avoid any project that fails to meet that benchmark.

Government building the infrastructure then selling it to the private sector as a going concern is an expensive option, for exactly the same reason.